- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Keeping based on the rationale presented by Mark_viking. Feel free to improve. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain ( talk) 15:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Applied Logic Corporation
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Applied Logic Corporation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Old declined prod. No evidence this company passes WP:GNG/ WP:NCOMPANY. Few mentions in passing/old press releases and their rewrites along the 'business as usual' lines. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, I just added a couple of references in scholarly books plus extra material.
Peter Flass (
talk) 23:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Peter, from what I see here you've added 2 refs: [1]. And the only time it mentions the company is in the section "NEW DECUS MEMBERS". This is not even a mention in passing, but the worst possible google hit (that one or two employees of that company joined that mailing list or whatever that DECUS was). This is not helpful. Second is a bit better ( [2]), as in, it's a full sentence... but it is still a far cry from requirement of in-depth coverage. One sentence is hardy anywhere close.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep – kind of stubby, but an important early computing company.
Dicklyon (
talk) 02:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- WP:ITSIMPORTANT is right there on the list of bad AfD arguments. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete
Peter Flass'
good faith attempts at adding scholarly journal references are useful, but scholarly journal references do not establish
notability unless they are an at length and in-depth article about this company to write more than a stub- or start-class article, per
WP:CORPDEPTH and
WP:SIGCOV. No evidence
notability is met here.
Doug Mehus
T·
C 03:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Concur. The one-sentence mentions that a group at this company developed some novel tech or such is not sufficient to make the company notable, plus the focus of those sentences is about a group, not company, so WP:NOTINHERITED too. That said, does anyone has access to [3]? There is something about the company there, but I can't tell through the snippet view if it's a two sentence PR blurb or an actual in-depth analysis of sorts. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Per
Dicklyon ... (I think it was me who declined the prod).
Djm-leighpark (
talk) 08:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- WP:KEEPPER for a bad argument... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep The company is defunct since 1975. I assume there are offline sources from the 60s and 70s. I found some short news in the Computerworld magazine, so there are at least some RS even for the lazy kids of the internet age.
Pavlor (
talk) 09:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Pavlor, could you link said Computerworld issue/page? It has not been added to the article and my search fails to find anything substantial. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @
Pavlor: We have to prove those offline sources exist. So, I look at it, how substantive is this article? Per the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Stuart, a result of "delete" should be without prejudice to someone, presumably in California or wherever this company was based, going to their local library and looking up on microfilm/microfiche for sources and trying again. Failing that, a draftification or userification potentially could be a reasonable result; however, again, there's nothing in this article intellectually creative that's worthy of preserving
attribution history here.
Doug Mehus
T·
C 20:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Until someone goes to that library (I can´t as I´m on the other side of the Ocean), I assume there are sources (the few I saw indicate this is really plausible). As there is no harm in keeping this article, keep is my default stance.
Pavlor (
talk) 08:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a good argument. The responsibility to go the library lies no the article's creator or those wanting to keep it, per WP:V. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Until someone goes to that library (I can´t as I´m on the other side of the Ocean), I assume there are sources (the few I saw indicate this is really plausible). As there is no harm in keeping this article, keep is my default stance.
Pavlor (
talk) 08:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- @
Pavlor: We have to prove those offline sources exist. So, I look at it, how substantive is this article? Per the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Stuart, a result of "delete" should be without prejudice to someone, presumably in California or wherever this company was based, going to their local library and looking up on microfilm/microfiche for sources and trying again. Failing that, a draftification or userification potentially could be a reasonable result; however, again, there's nothing in this article intellectually creative that's worthy of preserving
attribution history here.
Doug Mehus
T·
C 20:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep (
edit conflict)Company meets our notability requirement
WP:BARE. Pre-internet company so sources were hard to come by, however there is Computerworld magazine and some book entries. And notability is not temporary.
Wm335td (
talk) 20:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please explain how this meets notability, so far you offered just an assertion.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Closing admin is reminded that WP:NOTAVOTE, given that effectively all keep but the first one arguments so far seem to be taken straight from Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Thoe company is known for its timesharing systems and its automated theorem provers. In the timesharing domain,
Auerbach's guide to timesharing, p. 68-69 has about a page on the company and its timesharing services as well as mentions throught the book.
Physics Today, SHOPPING FOR A TIME-SHARING SERVICE, p.42-43 also displays them as one of the major timesharing services. In the theorem proving field,
[4] by Mackenzie has a few paragraphs about the SAM series of provers and notes the "SAM's lemma" was "was widely hailed as the first contribution of automated reasoning systems to mathematics."
A Short Survey of Automated Reasoning (a few paragraphs) noted that the SAM series was one of the first interactive theorem provers and and had influence on subseequent theorem provers. An
SEC newsletter p.2 from the time has some basics on the company financials and services. There was one other source, the book "Mathematical Software" by John R Rice, 1971, that looks like it may have some more coverage, but I don't have access. All the sources I had access to demonstrate notability and impact of the company, and I think add up to modest but sufficient notability to have an article per
WP:GNG. Research was a part of this company's impact and independent sources noting that are excellent and on target for notability; in this I disagree with some of the above editors dismissive attitudes towards scholarly publications. The article itself is a well-referenced stub and has no problems. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --
{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk}14:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank's Mark, good stuff there and seems to have sorted Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process stuff that was going on. Re-enforce's my keep !vote above. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 22:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Keeping based on the rationale presented by Mark_viking. Feel free to improve. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain ( talk) 15:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Applied Logic Corporation
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Applied Logic Corporation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Old declined prod. No evidence this company passes WP:GNG/ WP:NCOMPANY. Few mentions in passing/old press releases and their rewrites along the 'business as usual' lines. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, I just added a couple of references in scholarly books plus extra material.
Peter Flass (
talk) 23:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Peter, from what I see here you've added 2 refs: [1]. And the only time it mentions the company is in the section "NEW DECUS MEMBERS". This is not even a mention in passing, but the worst possible google hit (that one or two employees of that company joined that mailing list or whatever that DECUS was). This is not helpful. Second is a bit better ( [2]), as in, it's a full sentence... but it is still a far cry from requirement of in-depth coverage. One sentence is hardy anywhere close.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep – kind of stubby, but an important early computing company.
Dicklyon (
talk) 02:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- WP:ITSIMPORTANT is right there on the list of bad AfD arguments. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete
Peter Flass'
good faith attempts at adding scholarly journal references are useful, but scholarly journal references do not establish
notability unless they are an at length and in-depth article about this company to write more than a stub- or start-class article, per
WP:CORPDEPTH and
WP:SIGCOV. No evidence
notability is met here.
Doug Mehus
T·
C 03:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Concur. The one-sentence mentions that a group at this company developed some novel tech or such is not sufficient to make the company notable, plus the focus of those sentences is about a group, not company, so WP:NOTINHERITED too. That said, does anyone has access to [3]? There is something about the company there, but I can't tell through the snippet view if it's a two sentence PR blurb or an actual in-depth analysis of sorts. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Per
Dicklyon ... (I think it was me who declined the prod).
Djm-leighpark (
talk) 08:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- WP:KEEPPER for a bad argument... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep The company is defunct since 1975. I assume there are offline sources from the 60s and 70s. I found some short news in the Computerworld magazine, so there are at least some RS even for the lazy kids of the internet age.
Pavlor (
talk) 09:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Pavlor, could you link said Computerworld issue/page? It has not been added to the article and my search fails to find anything substantial. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @
Pavlor: We have to prove those offline sources exist. So, I look at it, how substantive is this article? Per the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Stuart, a result of "delete" should be without prejudice to someone, presumably in California or wherever this company was based, going to their local library and looking up on microfilm/microfiche for sources and trying again. Failing that, a draftification or userification potentially could be a reasonable result; however, again, there's nothing in this article intellectually creative that's worthy of preserving
attribution history here.
Doug Mehus
T·
C 20:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Until someone goes to that library (I can´t as I´m on the other side of the Ocean), I assume there are sources (the few I saw indicate this is really plausible). As there is no harm in keeping this article, keep is my default stance.
Pavlor (
talk) 08:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a good argument. The responsibility to go the library lies no the article's creator or those wanting to keep it, per WP:V. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Until someone goes to that library (I can´t as I´m on the other side of the Ocean), I assume there are sources (the few I saw indicate this is really plausible). As there is no harm in keeping this article, keep is my default stance.
Pavlor (
talk) 08:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- @
Pavlor: We have to prove those offline sources exist. So, I look at it, how substantive is this article? Per the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Stuart, a result of "delete" should be without prejudice to someone, presumably in California or wherever this company was based, going to their local library and looking up on microfilm/microfiche for sources and trying again. Failing that, a draftification or userification potentially could be a reasonable result; however, again, there's nothing in this article intellectually creative that's worthy of preserving
attribution history here.
Doug Mehus
T·
C 20:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep (
edit conflict)Company meets our notability requirement
WP:BARE. Pre-internet company so sources were hard to come by, however there is Computerworld magazine and some book entries. And notability is not temporary.
Wm335td (
talk) 20:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please explain how this meets notability, so far you offered just an assertion.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Closing admin is reminded that WP:NOTAVOTE, given that effectively all keep but the first one arguments so far seem to be taken straight from Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Thoe company is known for its timesharing systems and its automated theorem provers. In the timesharing domain,
Auerbach's guide to timesharing, p. 68-69 has about a page on the company and its timesharing services as well as mentions throught the book.
Physics Today, SHOPPING FOR A TIME-SHARING SERVICE, p.42-43 also displays them as one of the major timesharing services. In the theorem proving field,
[4] by Mackenzie has a few paragraphs about the SAM series of provers and notes the "SAM's lemma" was "was widely hailed as the first contribution of automated reasoning systems to mathematics."
A Short Survey of Automated Reasoning (a few paragraphs) noted that the SAM series was one of the first interactive theorem provers and and had influence on subseequent theorem provers. An
SEC newsletter p.2 from the time has some basics on the company financials and services. There was one other source, the book "Mathematical Software" by John R Rice, 1971, that looks like it may have some more coverage, but I don't have access. All the sources I had access to demonstrate notability and impact of the company, and I think add up to modest but sufficient notability to have an article per
WP:GNG. Research was a part of this company's impact and independent sources noting that are excellent and on target for notability; in this I disagree with some of the above editors dismissive attitudes towards scholarly publications. The article itself is a well-referenced stub and has no problems. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --
{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk}14:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank's Mark, good stuff there and seems to have sorted Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process stuff that was going on. Re-enforce's my keep !vote above. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 22:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.